CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
More Discrimination in Colorado Bakery?
Another case of discrimination has appeared in a Colorado bakery. This time it is a Christian asking for an anti gay message to be put on a cake. The customer wanted 2 men on the cake with an X over them. The bakery owner would not make the cake exactly the way the customer wanted, but would give them the icing to finish it. Colorado has already decided that refusing service to people for being gay is discrimination. Will they determine that refusing service to a Christian is also discrimination? Should the bakery owner be punished for not making the cake?
Sure they can. If someone's religious beliefs go against federal laws (i.e., tells them it's ok to stone someone to death in a situation that modern society would consider murder) the federal court can absolutely deny that person the ability to act on that belief.
The federal court cannot interfere with ones religion. See the 1st Amendment, that covers the federal courts as well. And your silly example carries no weight here, so it is irrelevant
The federal court cannot interfere with ones religion. See the 1st Amendment, that covers the federal courts as well. And your silly example carries no weight here, so it is irrelevant
Why is my argument irrelevant? If the federal court can't interfere with your religion, then they shouldn't be able to say that it is illegal for you to stone people if the Bible says you can.
There is no discrimination against Christians. There are anti-discrimination legislation to protect homosexuals. This law prevents discrimination by any group. The law does not target Christians.
No federal court has attempted to force people to act against their religious beliefs, seeing as how Christianity says nothing about who you should or should not bake cakes for, or that one is religiously required to go into an industry that includes non-discrimination laws that one must adhere to.
I do enjoy how you claim to respect states rights, except when said states do things you don't like. Then you call it "an act of war".
Actually they have in both Colorado and Oregon and Kansas. And of course in all those states that the federal courts think they can trample the right of the people to decide their own laws
No one has to bake a cake or take pictures of homosexuals if they do not want to. Heck people do not have to allow homosexuals to come into their businesses. Because of these acts, we should turn it around by firing the known homosexuals and kicking them out of our apartments/homes
Yes they are, as you prove here. Face it you are a lair, you have not posted one honest thing yet
If that is the case, then you should be able to dispute any of his claims with reasoning or counter-evidence. You have not done that at all. As such, your claim that he is a liar is completely unsupported.
There is an easy way for you to fix this; make arguments instead of opinions and insults.
Dear conservative leaders and pro-family activists,
I share your concerns regarding the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. As you mentioned, any decision that redefines the institution of marriage, which has existed for thousands and thousands of years, would overturn the will of American citizens in more than 30 states who have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Under the U.S. Constitution, we have three, co-equal branches of government. The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Branch, and it is certainly not the Supreme Being. Throughout our nation’s history, the court has delivered backwards, broken rulings. These nine, unelected Supreme Court justices have rationalized the destruction of human life, defined African Americans as property and justified Japanese-American internment camps.
The notion that the Supreme Court is an exclusive entity empowered to interpret the Constitution is a modern myth, which has flourished since the 1960s. I reject this idea as just another flawed, failed feature of big government, inconsistent with what our founders fought a revolution to establish.
As both an American and a candidate for president, I will never forget who I serve: my God, my country, and the U.S. Constitution.
I refuse to sit silently as politically driven interest groups threaten the foundation of religious liberty, criminalize Christianity, and demand that Americans abandon Biblical principles of natural marriage. I will fight to defend religious liberty at all costs.
I also refuse to surrender to the false god of judicial supremacy, which would allow black-robed and unelected judges the power to make law and enforce it, which upends the separation of powers so very central to our Constitution. Too much power concentrated in the courts is a threat to our Republic. I will fight judicial tyranny and return power to the people.
I call on all GOP candidates to join me in this fight to defend the Constitution. If you lack the backbone to reject judicial tyranny and fight for religious liberty, you have no business serving our nation as President of the United States.
Let me just repeat it for you: "How is the left punishing Christians? I have not heard of this bias in the criminal justice system."
How does a letter by Huckabee, an outspoken conservative pundit, answer my question?
The letter criticizes the Supreme Court and its "abuse" of power by cherry-picking specific cases. How is this the left punishing Christians? Are you suggesting the Supreme Court is a court in the criminal justice system? Even if this were so, you would still have to show bias by considering all past cases.
Dear conservative leaders and pro-family activists,
I share your concerns regarding the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. As you mentioned, any decision that redefines the institution of marriage, which has existed for thousands and thousands of years, would overturn the will of American citizens in more than 30 states who have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Under the U.S. Constitution, we have three, co-equal branches of government. The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Branch, and it is certainly not the Supreme Being. Throughout our nation’s history, the court has delivered backwards, broken rulings. These nine, unelected Supreme Court justices have rationalized the destruction of human life, defined African Americans as property and justified Japanese-American internment camps.
The notion that the Supreme Court is an exclusive entity empowered to interpret the Constitution is a modern myth, which has flourished since the 1960s. I reject this idea as just another flawed, failed feature of big government, inconsistent with what our founders fought a revolution to establish.
As both an American and a candidate for president, I will never forget who I serve: my God, my country, and the U.S. Constitution.
I refuse to sit silently as politically driven interest groups threaten the foundation of religious liberty, criminalize Christianity, and demand that Americans abandon Biblical principles of natural marriage. I will fight to defend religious liberty at all costs.
I also refuse to surrender to the false god of judicial supremacy, which would allow black-robed and unelected judges the power to make law and enforce it, which upends the separation of powers so very central to our Constitution. Too much power concentrated in the courts is a threat to our Republic. I will fight judicial tyranny and return power to the people.
I call on all GOP candidates to join me in this fight to defend the Constitution. If you lack the backbone to reject judicial tyranny and fight for religious liberty, you have no business serving our nation as President of the United States.
My point was that the only real punishment is being sued for not providing gays a cake. Only the people who don't want to provide cake are being punished, not all Christians.
His points are based almost completely on his opinions. Stating that he is psycho certainly doesn't qualify as an argument, but that doesn't mean he can't refute his points. His arguments are simply based on what he believes, so if he is not credible to your opponent, then using him as reference is probably a poor plan.
The will of the people used to be that slaves should be allowed. The will of the people used to be that whites couldn't marry blacks. Fuck the will of the people if the people are wrong.
I am apparently ill-informed on the matter, then. The issue seems to be enforcement of the law rather than the law inherently. It seems a bit sweeping to say we should go after other people because they made the law, rather than going after those who applied it with apparent prejudice.
I understand that now, and appreciate the clarification. What still puzzles me is that you agree with Astac when his comment stated that the miscarriage of justice means we "have to punish the liberal left and pro gay crowd" and even the notion that Christians are being at all systemically punished or oppressed.
The part where he claims that all Christians are being systemically punished or oppressed I disagree with and came in another argument. I agree that if someone is discriminatory they need to be punished, and should not be given a pass if they are part of the liberal left or are pro gay. I realize now that he is implying that there should be another rule that specifically targets the liberal left and pro gay crowd, but I interpreted it as they need to be held to the same standards.
I also think that those who act with hypocrisy and commit miscarriages within the established justice order ought to be held to account. I do not see that as remotely the point Astac was making though, and appreciating that that was your interpretation of his comment makes your endorsement far easier to understand. Thanks for clarifying.
1. Hatred of gays is NOT an intrinsic tenant of most people's interpretation of Christianity. Many Christians refuse to accept that attitude.
2. The cake itself would arguably violate discrimination laws. While I doubt the baker would get in trouble for it, its understandable that they wouldn't want to do it.
3. They offered to actually bake the cake and give the icing to the customer to finish it. They weren't refusing service, just refusing to complete the thing.
No one hates gays as there is no gay people, no such thing as a gay person. Now you do have men who choose to engage in sex with other men and boys (like the homosexual priests), these are not gay people, these are people born straight but choose to engage in homosexual acts .
Yes, there is hate here, as you have demonstrated.
Those "militant homosexuals" just want their rights, while people like you who have demonstrated hatred are trying to prevent them from obtaining said rights. They have a right to hate people like you who want to deny them their civil right and Constitutional rights.
Are no gay people, which, of course, is still wrong, as the fact that there are people with homosexual attractions proves there are gay people (and thus multiple gay persons).
Now you do have men who choose to engage in sex with other men
If those men are attracted to other men, they are homosexual (meaning attracted to members of the same sex). It is amazing that you accuse others of grasping at straws while saying stuff like this.
these are people born straight but choose to engage in homosexual acts .
You have absolutely no evidence to back up your claim that they were not actually attracted to those they had sex with.
No one hates gays, as there are no such thing as gays
As you have been told many times, homosexuality exists. People who are homosexual, are "gays". Therefore, gays exist.
Men rape, engage in incest, and engage in homosexual acts, those are all choices that people with low to no morals make
Homosexuality is not "homosexual acts". Heterosexuals can engage in "homosexual acts", but not be homosexual. Homosexuals can go their entire life without performing any homosexuals acts. That does not change the fact that one who is attracted to people of the same sex are homosexual. You don't even understand the words you are using, so just stop.
I think the baker should be punished for not providing the service she seemed to provide. If we are going to punish bakers for not making cakes for gays, we need to honor the opposite scenario.
But, I don't think she will be punished at all. She is claiming that she would have made the cake close enough to what the customer wanted, and that will be enough to avoid legal problems since she didn't discriminate against the person, but did discriminate against the work she was being asked to do.
Many grocery stores have their own bakeries, and sell custom order cakes. If those aren't available, then one could make a cake from grocery store ingredients, assuming that they have an oven, a bowl, and a halfway functioning pair of hands.
Why isn't the same a satisfactory response to the gay cakes, though, is what he's trying to say, I think- they already have legal precedents in their favor, after all. Why a double standard?
I'd point out that there is a big difference between refusing a project that depicts an organization/movement/group and favorably and refusing to do a message that depicts one unfavorably. There is a big difference between a celebratory depiction of a ku klux klan member vs a celebratory depiction of a lynching.
Refusing to put on such a message isn't predicated on the characteristics of the individual asking for it, so by definition it isn't discrimination against the person asking for that cake.
I really need to be more clear when posting; I was attempting (probably poorly) to interpret the angle Cartman was going for here.
Refusing to put on such a message isn't predicated on the characteristics of the individual asking for it, so by definition it isn't discrimination against the person asking for that cake.
Which is exactly my point in my second paragraph above.
I assumed that Cartman was making a typo when he said "should", since posting on the "no" side is less likely to do accidentally than a simple omission of "n't". It wasn't really anyone's fault, just a chain reaction. I too focused on the technical "message vs individual" to acknowledge the lessening of opportunity present that Cartman pointed out.
It isn't a typo. That's why my second paragraph started with "But".
She should be punished because Colorado determined that if you make cakes you must also provide the service of making wedding cakes for gay weddings. That should also mean that if you make cakes you should have to provide messages customers request. Your argument about this guy making his own cake can be used for gays.
She should be punished because Colorado determined that if you make cakes you must also provide the service of making wedding cakes for gay weddings.
That's more of a reason for "can", rather than "should".
"It's happening elsewhere" is not a justification for "It should happen there".
That should also mean that if you make cakes you should have to provide messages customers request.
Unless there are laws that bar you from refusing a service if the process of the service itself requires you to do something that conflicts with your beliefs (which was the message part of the cake assembly, not the baking or possible delivery part), it's legal, and quite different from refusing a service because "they're gay", or "it's for a gay wedding", which is irrelevant to the process of providing the service that they're asking you to do, because that's what discrimination actually is.
Your argument about this guy making his own cake can be used for gays.
Because perhaps I'm not against a Christian refusing to serve gays either, and I've expressed this view before?
That's more of a reason for "can", rather than "should".
"It's happening elsewhere" is not a justification for "It should happen there".
That isn't a case of elsewhere, that is a case of happening in the same place. The state should be consistent. If it was New York baker, or a California baker it would be "elsewhere".
Unless there are laws that bar you from refusing a service if the process of the service itself requires you to do something that conflicts with your beliefs (which was the message part of the cake assembly, not the baking or possible delivery part), it's legal, and quite different from refusing a service because "they're gay", or "it's for a gay wedding", which is irrelevant to the process of providing the service that they're asking you to do, because that's what discrimination actually is.
They are both forms of discrimination.
Because perhaps I'm not against a Christian refusing to serve gays either, and I've expressed this view before?
Your argument is a double standard. That's the point.
That isn't a case of elsewhere, that is a case of happening in the same place. If it was New York baker, or a California baker it would be "elsewhere".
They're elsewhere within the same state, no? That's what I'm referring to. I know that the laws are different in these states as well, but I'd only be in favor of enforcing a law if I agreed with it.
They are both forms of discrimination.
To the best of my knowledge, it's not illegal to discriminate against the action, what I'm referring to is the actual discrimination against people that we're not seeing in the homophobic cake incident, which is what the state actually cares about and makes laws against.
Your argument is a double standard. That's the point.
It would only be a double standard if I wanted the law to get involved in one, but not the other.
Again, I'm aware that my argument can be used to justify a Christian bakery refusing to to put "Love makes a marriage" on a cake, or something to effect, but it's not like I support getting the state involved if they refuse to do so.
I'd prefer that a gay couple not have service, rather than forcing a Christian bakery to serve cakes to a gay couple. Even if the bakery is being discriminatory and in general wrong, getting the state involved in either case causes more complications than it solves.
That doesn't make any sense. You are suggesting that each bakery should have it's own laws to follow instead of all bakeries in the same state.
That's what I'm referring to. I know that the laws are different in these states as well, but I'd only be in favor of enforcing a law if I agreed with it.
I am for enforcing the law, otherwise we have chaos. I would fight the law , but enforce it instead of letting people go free who break the rules and not getting rid of the bad rule.
It would only be a double standard if I wanted the law to get involved in one, but not the other.
Well, it would also be a double standard if you are ok with the people in power going against your viewpoint on the Christian baker.
I'm still not sure how you could support the authorities enforcing a law that they don't approve of. You've told me that it'll lead to chaos if we don't enforce this law in particular, or every law, but I'm missing the "how" part of that.
Some people get punished some don't. Not really sure what we should do based on the laws, let's just randomly punish people.
And espousing punishing people for laws that you don't approve of isn't arbitrary enough? I'm not advocating sporadically applying the law, I'm simply not going to advocate any gov't attempts to mold the country in a way that I don't like.
Your priorities are much better. Just talk about what should be done and completely ignore the actual execution.
I have practically no say in the execution of this law in Colorado, and neither do you. The most that I can do is state my viewpoint on the laws, and discuss these viewpoints for the sake entertainment.
They punished the Christian baker. You didn't want them to punish the Christian baker. Seems pretty open and shut. What are you missing?
I'm still not sure how you could support the authorities enforcing a law that they don't approve of. You've told me that it'll lead to chaos if we don't enforce this law in particular, or every law, but I'm missing the "how" part of that.
None of that has to do with your reasoning that a bakery down the street is elsewhere, but randomly enforcing laws is the definition of chaos.
And espousing punishing people for laws that you don't approve of isn't arbitrary enough? I'm not advocating sporadically applying the law, I'm simply not going to advocate any gov't attempts to mold the country in a way that I don't like.
But, the problem is that sometimes they listen to you and sometimes they don't. They need to either always listen to you on this topic or never listen to you, otherwise it isn't fair and people won't actually know how to avoid punishment.
None of that has to do with your reasoning that a bakery down the street is elsewhere,
That's because it already has been explained. They may be confined in the same general location, but they're still not the same bakery. I've already that I don't want the laws to apply to only one bakery in particular, more specifically because I don't want those laws to enforced anywhere.
Even if it was the same bakery under different departments, they're being hit with the same laws, so yeah, to me it really wouldn't matter if they weren't elsewhere.
but randomly enforcing laws is the definition of chaos.
In way, yes. However, I'm not supporting a "random" enforcement of laws.
and people won't actually know how to avoid punishment.
Do you think that not being punished on this law will lead to people trying to break others?
It's generally better for people to follow the law. In fact, I think that in this case it's still no bueno to break the law for the risk that it actually gets enforced, but you already know that I don't support enforcing that law, either.
But, the problem is that sometimes they listen to you and sometimes they don't.
I don't think that any gov't official really cares about what I, one person, thinks. My vote for a gov't official is probably worth a dollar (or a few) at most.
otherwise it isn't fair
That being said, "fair" is just how we describe a particular class of things that make most people feel good, and although most things that make us feel good are conducive for society, we should be working for that instead of the principles themselves. Again, that's just my opinion on priorities, different philosophies here.
That's because it already has been explained. They may be confined in the same general location, but they're still not the same bakery. I've already that I don't want the laws to apply to only one bakery in particular, more specifically because I don't want those laws to enforced anywhere.
These statements are contradictory. You are saying that since it is 2 different bakeries that they should have different rules while also saying that you don't want them to have different rules.
Even if it was the same bakery under different departments, they're being hit with the same laws, so yeah, to me it really wouldn't matter if they weren't elsewhere.
Then, maybe you shouldn't be arguing a point that is completely invalid.
In way, yes. However, I'm not supporting a "random" enforcement of laws.
You don't really care about the random enforcement and are happy that one person is not affected while ignoring the fact that someone else is though.
Do you think that not being punished on this law will lead to people trying to break others?
Do you think the new baker was trying to break the law? Do you think the previous baker was trying to break the law?
I don't think that any gov't official really cares about what I, one person, thinks. My vote for a gov't official is probably worth a dollar (or a few) at most.
Sorry, sometimes the politicians do what you advocate, and sometimes they don't. It has nothing to do with you, you are a worthless speck like you say.
These statements are contradictory. You are saying that since it is 2 different bakeries that they should have different rules while also saying that you don't want them to have different rules.
I'm saying that the rules regarding these practices should not be applied. Yes, this does mean supporting one verdict, but not the other, however I'm not supporting the verdict that the gay baker shouldn't be punished for the same reasons that the court provided.
Then, maybe you shouldn't be arguing a point that is completely invalid.
My point was that, even if they weren't elsewhere, it wouldn't change my opinion on the verdict, and I've illustrated how.
You don't really care about the random enforcement and are happy that one person is not affected while ignoring the fact that someone else is though.
Except they're not random, one is clearly a case of discrimination predicated on the person's traits, whereas the other is simply refusing to perform a service that conflicts with their views, and has nothing to do with the gender, sex, race, etc of the other party.
Do you think the new baker was trying to break the law? Do you think the previous baker was trying to break the law?
Not really either was trying to, but as long as it's not based on the attributes of the customer, that's not discrimination, and therefore not illegal.
Sorry, sometimes the politicians do what you advocate, and sometimes they don't. It has nothing to do with you, you are a worthless speck like you say.
Except they're not random, one is clearly a case of discrimination predicated on the person's traits, whereas the other is simply refusing to perform a service that conflicts with their views, and has nothing to do with the gender, sex, race, etc of the other party.
I disagree. The Christian was forced to provide his services for a wedding that went against his views. It is the same situation.
Of course, but the actions are more in line with the ability to not partake in the negative actions against groups.
If someone wants a cake that promotes christianity in a good way (promote giving, baby jeebus b-day, practicing humulity) then bakery has no reason to refuse service. Versus someone wants a cake that denigrates a group (muslims, women, atheists and so on), then we have a different situation.
The original debate lacks this context.
edit; I see thousandin1 already touched on this idea. I am a johnny come late I guess. Apologies if this seems repetitive.
Of course, but the actions are more in line with the ability to not partake in the negative actions against groups.
That part makes sense, but if we banned people from the ability to not partake in "positive" actions against a group, then we should also ban people from the ability to not partake in the negatives.
If someone wants a cake that promotes christianity in a good way (promote giving, baby jeebus b-day, practicing humulity) then bakery has no reason to refuse service.
What if I don't want to make a cake with Jesus on it?
Versus someone wants a cake that denigrates a group (muslims, women, atheists and so on), then we have a different situation.
Do we? Why? Cakes are only supposed to have nice stuff on them? Freedom of expression isn't about whether you like what is being said.
What if I don't want to make a cake with Jesus on it?
There is a difference between refusing service because of source versus subject matter. If you don't want to make a cake with Jeebus is not the same as not wanting to make a cake becaue it is of religion X. For instance if someone wants an erotic cake a bakery could refuse to fo so.
The cake in question is not promoting a religion, but is aiming to denigrating others.
The bakery is not refusing service due to religion but due to subject matter.
Freedom of expression isn't about whether you like what is being said.
Freedom of expression also doesn't mean all outlets must let you express your views through them.
If a neo-nazi wants a birthday cake the bakery could not refuse service based on the source (neo-nazi). If the neo-naxi wants a cake denigrating people of Jewish decent then the bakery could refuse service in that instance based on subject matter and its aim.
It goes against Christian belief to not serve gays cake. No one should expect a Christian not to serve them because the bible says to help sinners. It is against Christianity to not bake a cake for sinners.
If you are not wanted in a business, keep out. Maybe they are fed up with being pushed around and now they are putting their foot down. I say more power to them, and if they are continued to be pushed, they can always use more force back
As long as you stay on the country you will find someone who disagrees with you and threaten them with violence. You need to be locked up. Where do you live so I can avoid you?
Nope, only stating that force can and should be used against those trying to force their beliefs on society. The next Civil War will not be North and South, it will be over morals and liberty/freedom Against the immoral left
No punishment should be brought upon the baker. This, in my view, doesn't seem to warrant discrimination. In fact, they are asking a baker to make a cake that has a discriminatory message on it. If you were a baker would you make a cake like this? Or a cake that crosses out African-Americans? Or crosses out Native Americans? I wouldn't, it'd be too uncomfortable.
When we judge a situation, we should try and use due process. Actus reus and mens rea.
For a bakery to refuse service to all gay people, that is an act of discrimination against gay people. The motive would be based on the Christian's belief that all gay people are sinners.
For a bakery to refuse service to hate speech, that is an act of discrimination against "haters". The motive for this specific situation as indicated by the owner: "We never refuse service. But we did feel it was not right for us to present hateful words or images about human beings."
Homosexuals are/will be classified as a protected group under the Civil Rights Act. I don't think haters ever will.
Just because they asked for something they thought would be denied doesn't make them smart-alecky. It was the guys belief system and it doesn't affect the baker, so she is in the same position as the first baker.
And, a religious person being discriminated against has always been covered by that. What's your point? Now that gays are protected we shouldn't protect religious people?